Apparently it means "higher priced than the very cheapest third party competitor that offers lenses for the same mount". Nevermind any cost-cutting by the competitor, such as the three tiny bits of glue that hold the front element of a third-party's 24-70 zoom. And nevermind any incompatibilities caused by the third party reverse-engineering things. And nevermind their wrong-direction zooms. And nevermind any unique characteristics of the Canon offerings, such as the outstanding resolution of the 24-70/2.8 II, the built-in image stabilization of the 35/2 IS, the radio-controlled flash of the 600EX-RT, the variable raw file size and amazing quiet shutter mode of the 5DIII, the amazing 17mm tilt-shift or the 8-15mm fisheye lenses, etc. It follows from this logic that Canon should be competing on price with everyone else out there, and letting innovation and quality take a backseat to price competition. If a third-party ever makes a cheapo Canon-mount DSLR, then Canon should downgrade the 1DX and 5DIII to match it, to avoid being "overpriced". It also means discounting every product from the first day on the market, to avoid any introductory pricing, despite countless other businesses doing the same thing.

Just so you know I was the one that got that feature implemented on the 1D X. I wrote a technical article that was run by various internal Canon departments on how to implement f/8 AF on a camera which did not have f/8 capable AF points. I was given the opportunity to review the 1D X a week before it hit the streets and ran into an issue with lacking f/8 AF.

Just you, all by your lonesome? Art Morris solved that one, too...attach a Kenko 1.4x TC to an 800mm f/5.6L IS. I'm sure that didn't put any pressure on Canon, though, because no one's really heard of him, and no one at Canon would pay attention to him, despite him being a Canon Explorer of Light and all. Oh, and people have been taping pins on the 1.4x TC for years.

I am amazed by such sophisms questioning the very existence and the meaning of the term "overpriced". In some people the will to argue trascends every boundary set by mere common sense.

So, how would you consider a Ford Focus priced like a Maserati?

It's ridiculously plain that there's a value perception related to the market situation. This new 24-70 f/4, as well as other recent Canon products, do not come from God himself to give man the gift of taking pictures for the first time. They enter a game that other players were playing already.

In comparison with its two closest relatives - namely the 24-105 and Tamron 24-70 - it is apparent that this lens doesn't offer such superior quality or such unique features to justify such a higher price - thus it is overpriced.

I am amazed by such sophisms questioning the very existence and the meaning of the term "overpriced". In some people the will to argue trascends every boundary set by mere common sense.

So, how would you consider a Ford Focus priced like a Maserati?

It's ridiculously plain that there's a value perception related to the market situation. This new 24-70 f/4, as well as other recent Canon products, do not come from God himself to give man the gift of taking pictures for the first time. They enter a game that other players were playing already.

In comparison with its two closest relatives - namely the 24-105 and Tamron 24-70 - it is apparent that this lens doesn't offer such superior quality or such unique features to justify such a higher price - thus it is overpriced.

There is merit to your point. At least to me.

I have a different viewpoint to the 'overpriced' term: If an item released by a company comes down in price shortly (within 5-6 months) after it is announced, that means that the company was trying to get the maximum out of the customer at start. If they can sell it soon after release for less than what they introduced it at, they over priced it at introduction. The point is that no company will reduce the price to the extent they they do not make profit. And the price they reduce it to after they realize that the sales have dropped (of course they are still making profit), could (to me: should) have been the starting price. My belief.

Apple does NOT reduce prices of its computers. It stays the same over it's life cycle. I like that!

I also do not understand how retailers can drop prices unless they are getting some incentive from Canon. Or they had a margin of over $500 on 5d3 at introduction?

Canon helps me take photos and I appreciate that. I want to pay and help them make profit when I buy their products. I wish they would not penalize the early buyers...

I am amazed by such sophisms questioning the very existence and the meaning of the term "overpriced". In some people the will to argue trascends every boundary set by mere common sense.

So, how would you consider a Ford Focus priced like a Maserati?

It's ridiculously plain that there's a value perception related to the market situation. This new 24-70 f/4, as well as other recent Canon products, do not come from God himself to give man the gift of taking pictures for the first time. They enter a game that other players were playing already.

In comparison with its two closest relatives - namely the 24-105 and Tamron 24-70 - it is apparent that this lens doesn't offer such superior quality or such unique features to justify such a higher price - thus it is overpriced.

The supply of the 24-70 f/4 is relatively limited. The 24-105L is undercut by a large secondary market (it's a kit lens for a popular camera with a long life cycle so it's easy to buy used).

Car manufacturers do in fact do this all the time, and in some cases the limited quantity is completely contrived for example, they will release "special edition" models (which have a special paint color and some other mindor upgrades) in limited quantity and charge a large sum for it. One of my friends priced a Toyota Prius when they were at the height of their popularity and the dealer quote included a "supply and demand fee" for about $6000-.

There is also plenty of this from other manufacturers.

So it's hardly unprecedented. However, as a buyer of these products it's good to be aware of this and wait for the "early adopter premium" to expire. If I'm asked for buying advice, I always point out that new products have a premium attached to them. Often on this board the advice is "buy Canon and buy the most expensive thing Canon makes", but this isn't always good advice.

I am amazed by such sophisms questioning the very existence and the meaning of the term "overpriced". In some people the will to argue trascends every boundary set by mere common sense.

Sophisms? I do not think it means what you think it means.

I don't think anyone is trying to deny "the very existence" of the term. "Overpriced" simply doesn't have any meaning divorced from its context. For example:

I won't buy a 5D3 at $3500, so it's overpriced for me

I won't buy a D800 at $2000, so it's also overpriced for me

for a company like Canon, the term overpriced means they're not selling enough of them to meet their financial goals.

Quote

So, how would you consider a Ford Focus priced like a Maserati?

I won't buy it at that price so it's overpriced for me. Yet people do pay ridiculous amounts of money for restored old cars, even though their intrinsic quality is much lower than would be justified by the cost.

Quote

In comparison with its two closest relatives - namely the 24-105 and Tamron 24-70 - it is apparent that this lens doesn't offer such superior quality or such unique features to justify such a higher price - thus it is overpriced.

That means it's overpriced for you. Some people think its qualities do justify the higher cost, therefore it is not overpriced for them.

And what about a manual-focus Zeiss 100mm lens that costs $1800, is that overpriced by your definition? Why or why not? I can tell you that I won't buy it at that price, so it's overpriced for me. There are plenty of wealthy people paying what I consider to be ridiculous amounts of money for Leica manual focus cameras; are those cameras overpriced? I can tell you that they're overpriced for me.

This is simple economics:

"Overpriced" is a relative term, and cannot reasonably be used without the context. You can't reasonably say "X is overpriced," you must say "X is overpriced for..."

If you will not buy a product at its current price, then it's overpriced for you

If someone else will buy a product at its current price, then it's not overpriced for them

If Canon fails to sell enough of these products at their current price, then it's overpriced for them

I am amazed by such sophisms questioning the very existence and the meaning of the term "overpriced". In some people the will to argue trascends every boundary set by mere common sense.

Sophisms? I do not think it means what you think it means.

I don't think anyone is trying to deny "the very existence" of the term. "Overpriced" simply doesn't have any meaning divorced from its context. For example:

I won't buy a 5D3 at $3500, so it's overpriced for me

I won't buy a D800 at $2000, so it's also overpriced for me

for a company like Canon, the term overpriced means they're not selling enough of them to meet their financial goals.

Quote

So, how would you consider a Ford Focus priced like a Maserati?

I won't buy it at that price so it's overpriced for me. Yet people do pay ridiculous amounts of money for restored old cars, even though their intrinsic quality is much lower than would be justified by the cost.

Quote

In comparison with its two closest relatives - namely the 24-105 and Tamron 24-70 - it is apparent that this lens doesn't offer such superior quality or such unique features to justify such a higher price - thus it is overpriced.

That means it's overpriced for you. Some people think its qualities do justify the higher cost, therefore it is not overpriced for them.

And what about a manual-focus Zeiss 100mm lens that costs $1800, is that overpriced by your definition? Why or why not? I can tell you that I won't buy it at that price, so it's overpriced for me. There are plenty of wealthy people paying what I consider to be ridiculous amounts of money for Leica manual focus cameras; are those cameras overpriced? I can tell you that they're overpriced for me.

This is simple economics:

"Overpriced" is a relative term, and cannot reasonably be used without the context. You can't reasonably say "X is overpriced," you must say "X is overpriced for..."

If you will not buy a product at its current price, then it's overpriced for you

If someone else will buy a product at its current price, then it's not overpriced for them

If Canon fails to sell enough of these products at their current price, then it's overpriced for them

Some of these comparisons and smart a$$ comments about depreciation are ridiculous. I don't think the OP should have started an entire thread dedicated to this and been so dramatic about it, but I can sympathize with his feelings on the 5D3 and 5D3 only. You all act like the drop is completely normal but name one other piece of Canon gear that dropped that much that fast?

Of course depreciation is to be expected, but I think the 5D3's drop was different. The price of the 5D Mark II dropped maybe $200 the first 2 YEARS it was out. And if the 5D3 price pattern is the norm then why is the 1DX not under $5k now? It's the same price it was at it's release.

Not to mention there was a poll before the Mark III was shipped asking about when it would drop below $3000 and the earliest answers were around Xmas and even those people got laughed at. Nowhere did anyone say that it would drop to $2500 in 7 months or anywhere close to that. And why would they think that it would?

I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to believe their electronics won't ever depreciate, but most aren't complaining about the depreciation itself, just how quickly it happened. And I think a lot of the people being pricks about it are just trying to scorn the early adopters to make themselves feel better about waiting.

I don't care either way, I paid almost $3800 for mine and still think it's a great camera. But if you had told me I could save $1600 if I buy a refurb in 7 months, or $800 waiting 5 months, I would have considered waiting. But now I know for the future, lesson learned.

Some of these comparisons and smart a$$ comments about depreciation are ridiculous. I don't think the OP should have started an entire thread dedicated to this and been so dramatic about it, but I can sympathize with his feelings on the 5D3 and 5D3 only. You all act like the drop is completely normal but name one other piece of Canon gear that dropped that much that fast?

Of course depreciation is to be expected, but I think the 5D3's drop was different. The price of the 5D Mark II dropped maybe $200 the first 2 YEARS it was out. And if the 5D3 price pattern is the norm then why is the 1DX not under $5k now? It's the same price it was at it's release.

Not to mention there was a poll before the Mark III was shipped asking about when it would drop below $3000 and the earliest answers were around Xmas and even those people got laughed at. Nowhere did anyone say that it would drop to $2500 in 7 months or anywhere close to that. And why would they think that it would?

I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to believe their electronics won't ever depreciate, but most aren't complaining about the depreciation itself, just how quickly it happened. And I think a lot of the people being pricks about it are just trying to scorn the early adopters to make themselves feel better about waiting.

I don't care either way, I paid almost $3800 for mine and still think it's a great camera. But if you had told me I could save $1600 if I buy a refurb in 7 months, or $800 waiting 5 months, I would have considered waiting. But now I know for the future, lesson learned.

You got ripped off by both Canon an Uncle Sam. A little shopping around at launch or waiting a few years would have helped you save some money

Some of these comparisons and smart a$$ comments about depreciation are ridiculous. I don't think the OP should have started an entire thread dedicated to this and been so dramatic about it, but I can sympathize with his feelings on the 5D3 and 5D3 only. You all act like the drop is completely normal but name one other piece of Canon gear that dropped that much that fast?

Of course depreciation is to be expected, but I think the 5D3's drop was different. The price of the 5D Mark II dropped maybe $200 the first 2 YEARS it was out. And if the 5D3 price pattern is the norm then why is the 1DX not under $5k now? It's the same price it was at it's release.

Not to mention there was a poll before the Mark III was shipped asking about when it would drop below $3000 and the earliest answers were around Xmas and even those people got laughed at. Nowhere did anyone say that it would drop to $2500 in 7 months or anywhere close to that. And why would they think that it would?

I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to believe their electronics won't ever depreciate, but most aren't complaining about the depreciation itself, just how quickly it happened. And I think a lot of the people being pricks about it are just trying to scorn the early adopters to make themselves feel better about waiting.

I don't care either way, I paid almost $3800 for mine and still think it's a great camera. But if you had told me I could save $1600 if I buy a refurb in 7 months, or $800 waiting 5 months, I would have considered waiting. But now I know for the future, lesson learned.